Above the parapet

An extract from Stephen Emmott's book Ten Billion appeared in last week's Observer. The book looks at the likely impact of having a global population of ten billion and is disarmingly candid about the need to dramatically reduce consumption in the developed world.  I'm sure that he, and the Observer, won't mind if I lift this quote from the accompanying interview. 

"It might be useful to first distinguish between growth and behaviour. The problem is less the current number of us in itself (yet) but more the way the majority of the 7 billion of us live and consume. This is principally the cause of almost every global problem we face. Critically, every one of these problems is set to accelerate as we continue to grow. "Confronting", as you put it, the way we live and consume is not something politicians want to do. Doing so would be immensely unpopular. And politicians do like to be popular. Indeed, our entire political systems are set up for the opposite: to promote and encourage us to increase our consumption and irresponsible behaviour. As for scientists – my colleagues, I should add – the vast majority choose to do what I have chosen not to do; to keep their heads well below the parapet on this lot."

Now I can understand the politicians not wanting to face the consequences but what is it with the scientists. What is it that stops them from stating the obvious? To what social norm are they anxious to conform? Was that a pointed question?

I know that it all gets a bit boring banging on about the environment and eco-systems and stuff, but that hasn't stopped the Today programme running a daily slot on the archane nonsense of the financial markets. I find it hard to imagine that there aren't more of us with an attachment to the natural world than there are who get their kicks from thinking about  the made up stuff of the financial markets. So how about replacing half of these with an update on the state of our eco-services. What's happening to biodiversity in palm oil plantations? Have they identified the coal that won't get burned because we're going to use fracked gas instead? How are the attempts going to uncouple personal status from spending power? 

And when they do the inevitable linking shot during a documentary, the one where the celebrity/presenter drives to the next location, how about putting him on a bike, on the bus or even on his/her own two feet. 

And when the weather report says that tomorrow's going to be rainy, how about showing a picture of someone with an umbrella rather than traffic drowning in spray.

So instead of normalising driving let's normalise walking and cycling and using the bus.  Let's normalise giving a damn. 

If only so that Stephem Emmott's colleagues can start putting their heads above the parapet without feeling that they're boring or weird.